It is the reverse psychology of the apple story of Adam. The best way to make anything much wanted is to ban it. A movie that would have at best done average in cinema has all of a sudden become the most talked about, tweeted about and watched movie. Maalik has been receiving free publicity worth millions. Electronic media, social media, civil society and talk shows are just about showing everything that the movie had to show. Politicians and celebrities have jumped on the wagon and assemblies are passing resolutions in favour of it. Like every other reactive and knee jerk decision of the government this has become a parody of errors. Government instead of ensuring that nobody watches it has made sure that even those who would never bother about movies are also watching it. The ability to hog limelight has many strategic vehicles. Scams, controversies, abnormalities and outrageousness are age-old techniques to increase the word of mouth. In the corporate world controversial advertising is a deliberate strategy. Some organisations actually plan to shock and provoke audience through suggestive advertising to the extent of getting banned with the rationale that when you stop human beings from doing something it becomes ‘a must-see’ object. United Colours of Benetton, a very famous global apparel seller, for years, chose taboo topics in its advertising. Their advertisements would show a black woman with a white man with almost racial undertones and get banned within 15 days, but that would be after it became the talk of fashion world for the whole season, making black and white the ‘in’ colours to wear. At other times, they showed headless, uniformed bodies of Afghan soldiers with blood splashed on their uniforms, and red would become the colour of the season despite bans on these advertisements. Madonna was famous for her ability to remain in news and reinvent herself every time her songs fell in the chart list. Her album Erotica was not really what its name suggested but it ‘managed’ to get banned for a while to make it a hot item. The recent ‘super hit’ Taher Shah’s song Angel has created ripples all across the world. In the twitter world it was the top trend for days. The main reason for this song to trend online was the outrageous nature of Shah’s immersion and inspiration with his own world of colourful fantasy. The purple robes became a mocking sign of “Yes-I-have-seen-this-too” virus that infected millions all across the globe. Thus whether by default or by design banning or condemning anything is hardly ever successful in restricting its sale or popularity. Corporate world or celebrities use banning of their products or films as a deliberate strategy with the intent to make it more popular, and consequently, the results are what they plan for. Politicians who are clever also use outrageousness to increase their brand appeal. Donald Trump becoming the presumptive Republican presidential nominee may have left many people aghast, but to evoke that sentiment is exactly the deliberate ploy used by him to become the talk of the world. He spent the minimum on advertising amongst all candidates from both parties, but got the maximum coverage on media due to this scandalous strategy. However when Pakistani government bans a movie or YouTube or a song with the intent to make it less popular and accessible it does the exact opposite. That is why it is so difficult to understand the thinking behind this strategy that not only backfires but also exposes their level of pragmatism. This is not the first time government has banned a movie that shows politicians as being corrupt. In 1996, Nawaz Sharif government banned Junoon band’s song Ehtesab from their album Inqilaab as it showed how politicians indulged in corruption and there was no accountability for them. At that time, media was restricted to PTV and there was no social media. Despite that it became one of the reasons for Sharif government to become unpopular at that time. The difference now is that media industry is in private sector and social media has a large reach. The only result that this strategy has achieved is to ensure that millions watch the banned movie, and also to confirm government’s fear of being seen in the shady light that is already cast around them. Creation of perception is not just through showing or not showing a certain element on various platforms of media. It is also a product of matching behaviours that reinforce a certain perception. Thus if a media campaign is launched against a politician or a celebrity, and his behaviour, consequently, is contrary to that perception, over a period of time that campaign will die. Take, for example, the Panama leaks campaign against David Cameron. When his name first appeared in Panama leaks he denied involvement. The opposition grilled him. He immediately apologised that he had misstated facts, and that his father owned an offshore company but he had sold his stake in it before he became the prime minister of the United Kingdom. Media and opposition started a campaign painting him as a liar and instigated a huge public protest demanding his resignation. Cameron instead of banning any movies or videos that painted politicians in bad light or starting a counter-allegation scandal on the opposition immediately brought his documents in parliament and placed them in front of the opposition to prove his innocence. His behaviour tamed his critics and the perception was managed well to restore public confidence. Government is using all the wrong tactics to suppress the Panama leaks scandal. They start with a complete denial, which is followed by a counter attack, which is followed by threats, which is followed by contradictory statements, which is followed by more denials. This vicious circle has made them the laughing stock in media parody shows and an object of ridicule amongst analysts. The question then is why are they persisting with this self-defeating strategy? The answer is very simple: because it has worked in the past. Every corruption scandal has created an uproar that fades in no time. Given time, all scandals have resulted in political write-offs. SROs and NROs with mutual cooperation have resulted in mutual forgiveness. The only difference this time is that there are some unrelenting players both in the opposition and in army. Eventually, it will be government versus public pressure that will decide whether history will be repeated or history will be rewritten. The writer is a columnist and analyst and can be reached at andleeb.abbas1@gmail.com